Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1546552

Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node

From Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node
Date 2016-12-22 20:30 +0100
Message-ID <sRhdT-563-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <sQwym-89-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQx1o-ys-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQK8h-Qv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQKBj-10r-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sQTuV-6O0-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, here's mine.. compiles and boots on a NUMA x86_64 machine.
> 
> So I like how your patch is smaller, but your patch is also broken.
> 
> First off, the whole contention bit is *not* NUMA-specific. It should
> help non-NUMA too, by avoiding the stupid extra cache miss.
> 
> Secondly, CONFIG_NUMA is a broken thing to test anyway, since adding a
> bit for the NUMA case can overflow the page flags as far as I can tell
> (MIPS seems to support NUMA on 32-bit, for example, but I didn't
> really check the Kconfig details). Making it dependent on 64-bit might
> be ok (and would fix the issue above - I don't think we really need to
> care too much about 32-bit any more)
> 
> But making it conditional at all means that now you have those two
> different cases for this, which is a maintenance nightmare. So don't
> do it even if we could say "screw 32-bit".
> 
> Anyway, the conditional thing could be fixed by just taking Nick's
> patch 1/2, and your patch (with the conditional bits stripped out).

Yup.

> 
> I do think your approach of just re-using the existing bit waiting
> with just a page-specific waiting function is nicer than Nick's "let's
> just roll new waiting functions" approach. It also avoids the extra
> initcall.
> 
> Nick, comments?
> 
> Hugh - mind testing PeterZ's patch too? My comments about the
> conditional PG_waiters bit and page bit overflow are not relevant for
> your particular scenario, so you can ignore that part, and just take
> PaterZ's patch directly.

Right, I put them both through some loads yesterday and overnight:
Peter's patch and Nick's patch each work fine here, no issues seen
with either (but I didn't attempt to compare them, aesthetically
nor in performance).

Hugh

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-20 00:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> - 2016-12-20 01:30 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 03:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> - 2016-12-20 14:00 +0100
        Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 14:30 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-20 18:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-20 19:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-21 09:10 +0100
          Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-12-21 09:40 +0100
            Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 19:10 +0100
              Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:40 +0100
                Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:10 +0100
                Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 21:00 +0100
                Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 03:10 +0100
              Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> - 2016-12-22 20:30 +0100
          Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 11:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-20 03:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 13:40 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-12-21 19:20 +0100
      Re: [RFC][PATCH] make global bitlock waitqueues per-node Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:50 +0100

csiph-web